[PATCH v4 2/3] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_ready() for write on S29GL064N

[Miquel Raynal]

Thorsten,

regressions at leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100:

> On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >
> > regressions at leemhuis.info wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100:
> > 
> >> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote:
> >>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken on
> >>> S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good()
> >>> to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and an error
> >>> returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert the change
> >>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/  
> >>
> >> Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on my
> >> request (see
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@leemhuis.info/
> >>
> >> ) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts
> >> that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peoples
> >> life unnecessary hard. :-((
> >>
> >> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this:
> >>
> >> Link:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
> >>  [1]
> >>
> >> Ciao, Thorsten
> >>
> >> #regzbot ^backmonitor:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@pengutronix.de/
> >>
> > 
> > Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link
> > tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied.
> 
> That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time.
> 
> > I
> > then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report
> > because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it?

Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request
regarding the use of a Link tag and my original idea was to help this
contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little
about.

> But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of
> people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs
> coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That's
> why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not
> following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this
> case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder.

Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you*
wrote and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you
think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files?

I am totally fine enforcing the use of Link: tags if this is what has
been decided, just don't expect everybody to switch to a style rather
than another over a night.

> If you don't like the approach explained by the documentation, submit a
> patch adjusting the documentation and then we can talk about this. But
> until that is applied please stick to the format explained by the
> documentation.

This is uselessly condescending.

Thanks,
Miquèl